MAGISTERIAL.

Press, Volume L, Issue 15115, 3 November 1914, Page 4

MAGISTERIAL.

(Before Mr H. W. Bishop, 6.M.) DRUNKENNESS. Two first offending lneoriatos were each convicted and Uned ss, in default •J4 hours' imprisonment. Thomas Kieiy was iined os on a charge of drunkenness, and 10s on a charge of committing a nuisance in iloorhoiiise avenue. Daniel Christie pleaded guilty to charges of drunkenness and procuring liquor whilst prohibited, and admitted having been five times previously convicted for similar offences within the last six months. His Worship remanded defendant for seven days for medical treatment. SHOP-LIFTING. Lucy Crane, a married woman, through her solicitor, admitted having stolen 2 pairs of socks, 3 imitation flowers, 3 feathers, one piece of ribbon, 0 handkerchiefs, and 1 brush, of a. total value of Us 6d. the property of T. Armstrong and Co. In fining defendant £5. his Worship pointed out that cases of shop-lifting were becoming too frequent, and if they continued he would have to take up a different attitude in dealing with such cases. IX POSSESSION OF FIREARMS. Albert William Moore, through Mr Leathern, pleaded gnilty to*" being drunk in Cathedral square on Saturday while in possession of firearms. "A drunken man in possession of a revolver is not a very nico you

know," said Mr Bishop, in fining dofciidarit 20s, in default 7 days. ILLEGALLY ON PREMISES. Daniel Janjes Ilanna was charged with being found without lawful excuse oh tho premises of Harry Wild, a portoi at tho Christchurch Hospital. Defendant was ordered to come up for sentence within tiie next six months, and advised to bo more careful in tho future. CIVIL BUSINESS. Judgment was given for plaintiff by dqhmlt in each of the following 'ivil cases: H. T. D. Acland (Mr Ro-we) t. Louis Berlyn, £36 os 6d; H. Berry and Comoany v. Gamble and Coats. £1 7s 7d; Skelton, Frostick and Co.. Ltd. v. Kenneth Fred. Andrews, £18 15s Sd; J. J. Niven and Co. (Mr Cuningham), v. Pacific Motor Co., Ltd., £13 4s 5d ; Taylor fublishing Co., Ltd. (Mr Cuniiißhatn) v. Win. Henry FogHa, £2 4s; Barnefc Glass .aibber Co. (Mr Ctmingham) v. 0. G. Moore, £19 0s 7d; Andersons. Ltd. (Mr Rowo) v.-P. Harris, £4 17s 0d: dialing and Co., Ltd. r. John Boyd. senr., £8 12s; sanio v. Georgo Evans, £1 15s 10d; G'.obo Delivering Co. of New Zealand (Mr Salter* v. Jo'm James Murray, £25 Us Ud; H. Berry and Co. (Air Rove) v. J. H. Rodccrs, 19« 8d; Jano De Renzi (Mr A. W. Bishop) v. Thomas Henry Hensmnn. .CI 2s 6d; same v. Andrew Roid, £3 72s Gd: sanio v. Mrs Crowe and John Groove, £1 'Js M- Barnot Glass Rubber Co., Ltd. ( -r Dacre) v. Georgo Anson. £16 11s Gd; Triers and Dentdn (Mr Dacro) v. R. Birchall. £3 5«: Bisi'OD and Co. (Mr Ros-s). v. Henry Zweibrur-k, £3 4s; A. and Son (Mr Rowe) v. Joseph C. T. Baker. £129 17s 8d: Macfarlaiie an'l Co.. (Mr Johnston) v. F. Saxon, £8 Og Bd:' 1-. Hobbs and Co. v. F. A. Lelievro, £2 3s.

DEFENDED CASES. Mary Baker (Mr E. T. Harper) proceeded against her husband, Charles George Bakor (Mr H. F. Johnston) for the bala-ice of money due to her for board and lodging, while defendant counter-claimed for £8 (>s Bd, On tho main claim judgment was given by consent, and on the counterclaim his Worship allowed defendant £o. In the case of SnraTj Maria Paget v. Alfred lvobt. Wilkie, a claim for £50, plaintiff was r.onsuited. CLAIM FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES. (Before Mr T. A. B. Bailey, S.M.) At tne Court yesterday aiteuioon, a ca.se was ueaid in ivuicn .Jaae De lieuzi, as execiunx ot tuo wiU or tue iato Dr. A. C Do Kenzi, cmiiuod sum of jt-'rf from. C- JUujjj, w .ua-ismand, tor professional seivues lendeiod. .Air A. \v. liisiiop appeared ior tuo piaintift ana Mr i±. £L. lor the defendant. Mr Longhnan pointed out that tho sum of £1 iiJs had" paid into Uouit in full satisfaction ol ci»e claim. An item of £i!(5 5s for an operation remained in dispute. Air J.isnop eaid that tha action was to recover the amount duo to tuo plaintiff for an operation performed on t-ne defendant by the late Dr. Do ltenzi, who was assisted in the opejation by Drs. Simpson and Marks. Delendant, he undeistood, claimed that t«e ease had been diagnosed incorrectly, and that while under an anajstneti:: a. different ope;ation from that inteudea wns performed.

Doctors W. H. Simnson and J. D. Marks testified to the usual practice followed by a doctor when penoiming an operation. Both witnesses c.aid that it wab quite probable that whon tho opt-; ation intended was performed, some othor trouble might bo found, and, under such eircumstan'ci, tho operating surgeon might make another incK sio'.i to remove tVat trouble. They cov.ld not very well bring a patient out of the anncbthetic , and tell him that some other trouble had been detected and ask for his consent to perform such an operation. In the interests of the patient a modi"al man took whatever stops he thought necessary. The defendant set out that some timo before the operation was verformed he consulted I>r. De Renzi nnd rot bis advice. The dortor had told him that ho was suffering from an ulcer on tho sto"na;:b, and an operation would bo neressarv. He had then pointed out to tho doctor that be could not afford such an operation at tho time, and it was deferred. The operation was afterwards performed, but not the operation tJin-, defendant thought was Wing done. Ever since the he had the samo pains as before. He contended his case had been incorrectly dhgnosed. Ho did not allege irarronrietv. Fis* Worship said plaintiff must succeed, and gave for the amount claimed with costs.